[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-1533) UT015005: Error invoking method requestDestroyed on listener class
by Martin Kouba (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-1533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Martin Kouba resolved WFLY-1533.
--------------------------------
Resolution: Done
The way Weld performs cleanup and logging was improved a little bit. However the stacktrace logged by Undertow will remain.
> UT015005: Error invoking method requestDestroyed on listener class
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-1533
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-1533
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: CDI / Weld
> Affects Versions: 8.0.0.Alpha2, 8.0.0.Alpha4
> Reporter: Juergen Zimmermann
> Assignee: Martin Kouba
> Attachments: mojarra-2.1.zip, testcase-WFLY-1533.zip, testcase-wildfly-1533.zip
>
>
> I'm using a WildFly snapshot with Undertow 1.0.0.Alpha19 and Weld 2.0.1.Final. I'm getting the following stacktrace:
> 16:55:04,534 ERROR [io.undertow.servlet.request] UT015005: Error invoking method requestDestroyed on listener class org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldListener: java.lang.IllegalStateException: UT000010: Session not found MDEkG_Aum5OlXUsjh11kGkh9
> at io.undertow.server.session.InMemorySessionManager$SessionImpl.getAttribute(InMemorySessionManager.java:221) [undertow-core-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.servlet.spec.HttpSessionImpl.getAttribute(HttpSessionImpl.java:106) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at org.jboss.weld.context.http.HttpConversationContextImpl.getSessionAttribute(HttpConversationContextImpl.java:25) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at org.jboss.weld.context.http.HttpConversationContextImpl.getSessionAttribute(HttpConversationContextImpl.java:13) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at org.jboss.weld.context.AbstractConversationContext.dissociate(AbstractConversationContext.java:161) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at org.jboss.weld.servlet.ConversationContextActivator.disassociateConversationContext(ConversationContextActivator.java:162) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at org.jboss.weld.servlet.HttpContextLifecycle.requestDestroyed(HttpContextLifecycle.java:159) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at org.jboss.weld.servlet.WeldListener.requestDestroyed(WeldListener.java:91) [weld-core-impl-2.0.1.Final.jar:2013-06-03 10:29]
> at io.undertow.servlet.core.ApplicationListeners.requestDestroyed(ApplicationListeners.java:196) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler.handleFirstRequest(ServletInitialHandler.java:159) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler.dispatchRequest(ServletInitialHandler.java:114) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler.access$000(ServletInitialHandler.java:47) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.servlet.handlers.ServletInitialHandler$1.handleRequest(ServletInitialHandler.java:90) [undertow-servlet-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.server.HttpHandlers.executeRootHandler(HttpHandlers.java:36) [undertow-core-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at io.undertow.server.HttpServerExchange$1.run(HttpServerExchange.java:607) [undertow-core-1.0.0.Alpha19.jar:1.0.0.Alpha19]
> at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21]
> at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21]
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:722) [rt.jar:1.7.0_21]
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1742) BARRIER: minimize closing time
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1742:
--------------------------------
Hmm, perhaps we go back to queueing messages during a closed BARRIER. The advantage is that we don't have to rely on stability to trigger retransmission on a last-msg-lost problem, but the messages in the queue will trigger retransmission.
Even better, we could only store the *last message sent per sender* (separate for unicast and multicast messages): this would reduce space requirements and it would also trigger retransmission, and we wouldn't have to wait for stability to kick in...
> BARRIER: minimize closing time
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1742
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Reporter: Bela Ban
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.5
>
>
> During a state transfer, BARRIER.up() waits until all incoming threads (delivering messages to the application) are done, and blocks further incoming messages. This is done to get the digest and the state.
> However, duing the block, the following messages are not sent up:
> * Views !
> * STABLE messages, triggering retransmissions
> This is bad, so we should try to minimize the time BARRIER is closed. This can be done with JGRP-1352.
> However, we could also do the following:
> * A state request is received
> * Close BARRIER and flush all pending threads. This ensures that any message which updated the *digest* also updated the *application state*
> * Get the digest D
> * *Open* BARRIER. Messages will now be delivered and thus applied to the state
> * Get the application state S
> * When done, return D and S to the state requester
> The difference to JGRP-1352 is that we don't queue messages during state transfer. How does this work ? It is critical to ensure that all mesages which updated the digest D also updated the state S, or else messages present in D but not in S would not be retransmitted. However, if there are more messages in S than in D, this is not an issue as they will be retransmitted again.
> Example:
> * BARRIER is closed and pending threads are flushed
> * Digest D is (only for a given member P) 5, state S is 5 as well
> * Now we open BARRIER
> * P sends a few more messages (6, 7 and 8)
> * The digest is now 8, but the copy we have is still 5
> * State S is 8
> * We return D=5 and S=8
> * The state requester closes BARRIER and sets its digest to 5 and its state to 8
> * Since the digest is only 5 for P, the state requester asks P for retransmission of messages 6, 7 and 8
> * Messages 6, 7 and 8 from P are received and applied to the state
> * The assumption here is that if messages 6, 7 and 8 are applied twice, the state doesn't change (idempotency). This should be the case with Infinispan.
> The advantage of this issue over JGRP-1352 is that we don't need to queue messages for a long time if the state is large.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-2318) Access control exceptions missing for scoped roles
by Harald Pehl (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-2318?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Harald Pehl resolved WFLY-2318.
-------------------------------
Resolution: Done
Can confirm that the response does contain exceptions when using either of the role notations:
{code}/server-group=*:read-resource-description(access-control=trim-descriptions, operations=true){roles=main-maintainer,other-monitor}{code}
{code}/server-group=*:read-resource-description(access-control=trim-descriptions, operations=true){roles=[main-maintainer,other-monitor]}{code}
> Access control exceptions missing for scoped roles
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-2318
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-2318
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: Domain Management
> Reporter: Heiko Braun
> Assignee: Harald Pehl
>
> The following setup: user with two scoped roles assigned. maintainer for "main-servers", monitor for "other-servers". Requesting the access control meta data for the server group wildcard ]does not include "exceptions".
> Expected result: the access control meta data response contains an "exception" for each server group (main-server-group & other-server-group)
> {code}
> [domain@localhost:9999 /] ./server-group=*:read-resource-description(access-control=trim-descriptions, operations=true){roles=main-servers, other-servers}
> {
> "outcome" => "success",
> "result" => [{
> "address" => [("server-group" => "*")],
> "outcome" => "success",
> "result" => {
> "description" => undefined,
> "attributes" => undefined,
> "operations" => undefined,
> "children" => {
> "deployment" => {"model-description" => undefined},
> "system-property" => {"model-description" => undefined},
> "jvm" => {"model-description" => undefined},
> "deployment-overlay" => {"model-description" => undefined}
> },
> "access-control" => {
> "default" => {
> "read" => true,
> "write" => true,
> "attributes" => {
> "socket-binding-port-offset" => {
> "read" => true,
> "write" => true
> },
> "management-subsystem-endpoint" => {
> "read" => true,
> "write" => false
> },
> "socket-binding-group" => {
> "read" => true,
> "write" => true
> },
> "profile" => {
> "read" => true,
> "write" => true
> }
> },
> "operations" => {
> "read-children-names" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-operation-description" => {"execute" => true},
> "remove" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-resource-description" => {"execute" => true},
> "stop-servers" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-resource" => {"execute" => true},
> "add" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-attribute" => {"execute" => true},
> "whoami" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-children-types" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-operation-names" => {"execute" => true},
> "undefine-attribute" => {"execute" => true},
> "start-servers" => {"execute" => true},
> "read-children-resources" => {"execute" => true},
> "restart-servers" => {"execute" => true},
> "replace-deployment" => {"execute" => true},
> "write-attribute" => {"execute" => true}
> }
> },
> "exceptions" => {}
> }
> }
> }]
> }
> {code}
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1742) BARRIER: minimize closing time
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban edited comment on JGRP-1742 at 12/3/13 5:05 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------
We'd have to maintain something akin to a Table (perhaps based on a bit set), which keeps track of the highest (app-)delivered seqnos.
Big problem: stability is based on the *highest delivered* message which is the highest seqno *removed* from the table. If, on a state transfer, we return a digest based on seqnos which have been *applied* to the application, then we might run into a retransmission problem, e.g. if we have {{A:15}} in the real digest, but the app-digest is {{A:10}}, if a stability {{A:14}} occurs we may not be able to provide messages A:11-14 !
A possible solution would be to alter Table: hd would be set after a message has been delivered to the application, hrem would be set when a message is removed (current hd). I'm shying away from this though as Table is a critical component, and I don't want to change it only for state transfer (even not used by Infinispan)
was (Author: belaban):
We'd have to maintain something akin to a Table (perhaps based on a bit set), which keeps track of the highest (app-)delivered seqnos.
Big problem: stability is based on the *highest delivered* message which is the highest seqno *removed* from the table. If, on a state transfer, we return a digest based on seqnos which have been applied to the application, then we might run into a retransmission problem, e.g. if we have {{A:15}} in the real digest, but the app-digest is {{A:10}}, if a stability {{A:14}} occurs we may not be able to provide messages A:11-14 !
> BARRIER: minimize closing time
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1742
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Reporter: Bela Ban
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.5
>
>
> During a state transfer, BARRIER.up() waits until all incoming threads (delivering messages to the application) are done, and blocks further incoming messages. This is done to get the digest and the state.
> However, duing the block, the following messages are not sent up:
> * Views !
> * STABLE messages, triggering retransmissions
> This is bad, so we should try to minimize the time BARRIER is closed. This can be done with JGRP-1352.
> However, we could also do the following:
> * A state request is received
> * Close BARRIER and flush all pending threads. This ensures that any message which updated the *digest* also updated the *application state*
> * Get the digest D
> * *Open* BARRIER. Messages will now be delivered and thus applied to the state
> * Get the application state S
> * When done, return D and S to the state requester
> The difference to JGRP-1352 is that we don't queue messages during state transfer. How does this work ? It is critical to ensure that all mesages which updated the digest D also updated the state S, or else messages present in D but not in S would not be retransmitted. However, if there are more messages in S than in D, this is not an issue as they will be retransmitted again.
> Example:
> * BARRIER is closed and pending threads are flushed
> * Digest D is (only for a given member P) 5, state S is 5 as well
> * Now we open BARRIER
> * P sends a few more messages (6, 7 and 8)
> * The digest is now 8, but the copy we have is still 5
> * State S is 8
> * We return D=5 and S=8
> * The state requester closes BARRIER and sets its digest to 5 and its state to 8
> * Since the digest is only 5 for P, the state requester asks P for retransmission of messages 6, 7 and 8
> * Messages 6, 7 and 8 from P are received and applied to the state
> * The assumption here is that if messages 6, 7 and 8 are applied twice, the state doesn't change (idempotency). This should be the case with Infinispan.
> The advantage of this issue over JGRP-1352 is that we don't need to queue messages for a long time if the state is large.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-1742) BARRIER: minimize closing time
by Bela Ban (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Bela Ban commented on JGRP-1742:
--------------------------------
We'd have to maintain something akin to a Table (perhaps based on a bit set), which keeps track of the highest (app-)delivered seqnos.
Big problem: stability is based on the *highest delivered* message which is the highest seqno *removed* from the table. If, on a state transfer, we return a digest based on seqnos which have been applied to the application, then we might run into a retransmission problem, e.g. if we have {{A:15}} in the real digest, but the app-digest is {{A:10}}, if a stability {{A:14}} occurs we may not be able to provide messages A:11-14 !
> BARRIER: minimize closing time
> ------------------------------
>
> Key: JGRP-1742
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-1742
> Project: JGroups
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Reporter: Bela Ban
> Assignee: Bela Ban
> Fix For: 3.5
>
>
> During a state transfer, BARRIER.up() waits until all incoming threads (delivering messages to the application) are done, and blocks further incoming messages. This is done to get the digest and the state.
> However, duing the block, the following messages are not sent up:
> * Views !
> * STABLE messages, triggering retransmissions
> This is bad, so we should try to minimize the time BARRIER is closed. This can be done with JGRP-1352.
> However, we could also do the following:
> * A state request is received
> * Close BARRIER and flush all pending threads. This ensures that any message which updated the *digest* also updated the *application state*
> * Get the digest D
> * *Open* BARRIER. Messages will now be delivered and thus applied to the state
> * Get the application state S
> * When done, return D and S to the state requester
> The difference to JGRP-1352 is that we don't queue messages during state transfer. How does this work ? It is critical to ensure that all mesages which updated the digest D also updated the state S, or else messages present in D but not in S would not be retransmitted. However, if there are more messages in S than in D, this is not an issue as they will be retransmitted again.
> Example:
> * BARRIER is closed and pending threads are flushed
> * Digest D is (only for a given member P) 5, state S is 5 as well
> * Now we open BARRIER
> * P sends a few more messages (6, 7 and 8)
> * The digest is now 8, but the copy we have is still 5
> * State S is 8
> * We return D=5 and S=8
> * The state requester closes BARRIER and sets its digest to 5 and its state to 8
> * Since the digest is only 5 for P, the state requester asks P for retransmission of messages 6, 7 and 8
> * Messages 6, 7 and 8 from P are received and applied to the state
> * The assumption here is that if messages 6, 7 and 8 are applied twice, the state doesn't change (idempotency). This should be the case with Infinispan.
> The advantage of this issue over JGRP-1352 is that we don't need to queue messages for a long time if the state is large.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-2533) Add ability to set default character encoding on a subsystem level
by Norbert Kozłowski (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-2533?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ]
Norbert Kozłowski commented on WFLY-2533:
-----------------------------------------
Works great. Thanks
> Add ability to set default character encoding on a subsystem level
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WFLY-2533
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-2533
> Project: WildFly
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: Web (Undertow)
> Reporter: Stuart Douglas
> Assignee: Tomaz Cerar
> Fix For: 8.0.0.CR1
>
>
> Stuart: the charset one should be pretty simple, just an attribute on <servlet-container?
> Stuart: ideally we would also have it in jboss-web.xml as well
> Stuart: I should also add an option to use the connector encoding
> Stuart: as connectors have their own encoding set
> Stuart: that is used to decode the URL
> Stuart: we should have an option to use the connector encoding as the default encoding
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months
[JBoss JIRA] (SECURITY-770) Support external password for keystore of PicketBoxVault implementation
by Ivo Studensky (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SECURITY-770?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ]
Ivo Studensky reassigned SECURITY-770:
--------------------------------------
Assignee: Peter Skopek (was: Ivo Studensky)
I don't have commit permissions to the svn repository. Peter, could you commit it please?
> Support external password for keystore of PicketBoxVault implementation
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: SECURITY-770
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/SECURITY-770
> Project: PicketBox
> Issue Type: Feature Request
> Security Level: Public(Everyone can see)
> Components: JBossSX
> Affects Versions: PicketBox_4_0_19.Final
> Reporter: Ivo Studensky
> Assignee: Peter Skopek
> Attachments: SECURITY-770_with_testcase_2.patch
>
>
> At the moment, the default implementation of Vault supports masked keystore password only. It would be nice to add a facility for external keystore password too so that customers can either define an external command to get the password or define their own class which provides a password for the keystore.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12 years, 7 months